Seriously, I’m not the audience. You know what else was good? Some “chick flick” that no one ever saw because people called it a chick flick.

Does anyone notice that a movie can have an all-male leading cast and still be considered topical for general audiences? While any film with a predominately-female cast gets the female-audience marketing and press treatment, gender is almost never even mentioned when it comes to man-centric stories. Why is it that women can relate and grasp and laugh and empathize with the stories of men while men get to say “chick flick” and dismiss our stories?

Some stories are genuinely gender-inclusive. But the vast majority of major Hollywood films are about the lives of cool men to which women contribute smaller parts—usually their private parts. Even when the guys are geeks they’re cool enough to be the lead that you'll end up falling in love with. You tend not to fall in love with a girl geek in a movie unless and until she gets a makeover.

I love movies. I fucking love movies. So I definitely love men—directors, writers, and actors—and their stories. But here’s a few fact-ish items:

1) I’m a woman.2) I’m not lame.3) I’m pretty sure I’m not the only woman who’s not lame.4) I don’t actually make movies myself, so I’m no expert, yet somehow I can conceive of the possibility that a general audience could find a story about women entertaining—possibly even humorous and engaging. I know, I know, if I actually worked in the movie business I would understand why that’s simply impossible. I’d have the facts. The lay-people always wanna tell the experts how it’s done.

I’m not saying that boy movies shouldn’t exist, I’m just saying, “dick flick” is just as much of a specialization as “chick flick” and we should all--the critics and the fans--take notice. The culture seems to say “who doesn’t want to spend a couple of hours with a bunch of guys? Isn’t that the spice of everyone's life?” Let’s pull our heads out of our asses. This isn’t 100 years ago or something.